IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v62y2006i6p1307-1318.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Supporting choice and control? Communication and interaction between midwives and women at the antenatal booking visit

Author

Listed:
  • McCourt, Christine

Abstract

This study focused on patterns of communication between midwives and pregnant women and their implications for information, choice and control as now advocated in UK government policy. An earlier casenote audit evaluation of a new organisation of maternity care where midwives carry a personal caseload indicated no difference in quality standards of midwifery care from conventional care, yet women using the service gave a different view. In order to understand whether this difference might be an artefact of the research, responses to change, or a reflection of the limitations of using casenotes for research, an observation-based study was conducted. Forty interviews were observed in three UK settings: hospital clinic, GP clinic and women's homes. Interviews were tape-recorded and notes and drawings of interaction made. The transcripts were analysed using structured and qualitative approaches. The interactional patterns differed according to model of care i.e. conventional or caseload, and setting of care. Several key 'tasks' in the visits were noted, with risk screening and health education information being dominant in conventional care. A continuum of styles of communication was identified, with the prevalent styles also differing according to location and organisation of care. The hierarchical and formal styles discussed in earlier sociological work were the most common in conventional care, despite the focus of midwifery on being 'with-woman' and the recent policy emphasis on consumer choice. The caseload visits showed a less hierarchical and more conversational form and supported women's reports that this model of care offered them greater information, choice and control. The variation in patterns suggests that context is an important consideration in research of this type, with environment (both micro- and macro-level) and organisation of care influencing the ways in which the concepts of choice or consumerism operate in practice.

Suggested Citation

  • McCourt, Christine, 2006. "Supporting choice and control? Communication and interaction between midwives and women at the antenatal booking visit," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(6), pages 1307-1318, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:62:y:2006:i:6:p:1307-1318
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(05)00404-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Finlay, Susanna & Sandall, Jane, 2009. ""Someone's rooting for you": Continuity, advocacy and street-level bureaucracy in UK maternal healthcare," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1228-1235, October.
    2. Kristiina Heinonen, 2021. "Strengthening Antenatal Care towards a Salutogenic Approach: A Meta-Ethnography," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-28, May.
    3. Madeleine Aannestad & Marit Herstad & Elisabeth Severinsson, 2020. "A meta‐ethnographic synthesis of qualitative research on women's experience of midwifery care," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 171-183, June.
    4. Bente Dahl & Kristiina Heinonen & Terese Elisabet Bondas, 2020. "From Midwife-Dominated to Midwifery-Led Antenatal Care: A Meta-Ethnography," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-22, December.
    5. Rosemary Mander & Ngai Fen Cheung & Xiaoli Wang & Wei Fu & Junghong Zhu, 2010. "Beginning an action research project to investigate the feasibility of a midwife‐led normal birthing unit in China," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3‐4), pages 517-526, February.
    6. Purva Abhyankar & Barbara A. Summers & Galina Velikova & Hilary L. Bekker, 2014. "Framing Options as Choice or Opportunity," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(5), pages 567-582, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:62:y:2006:i:6:p:1307-1318. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.